Title: | Efficacy of nonpheromone communication disruptants of codling moth (Cydia pomonella): Effect of pheromone isomers and of distance between calling females and dispensers |
Author(s): | McDonough LM; Chapman PS; Weissling TJ; Smithhisler CL; |
Address: | "Agricultural Research Service, USDA, 3706 W. Nob Hill Blvd., 98902, Yakima, Washington" |
ISSN/ISBN: | 0098-0331 (Print) 0098-0331 (Linking) |
Abstract: | "Field tests comparing the ability of codlemone, (E,E)-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol, and isomers of codlemone to disrupt pheromonal communication of codling moth were carried out. In a pear orchard, four nonisomerizing, gray septa dispensers were placed in the upper canopy of each tree containing a trap baited with 10 virgin female codling moths. The dispensers were at trap height and 70 cm from the edge of each trap. Trap catches of released male codling moths in three test areas were compared simultaneously when trees in each of the test areas contained unbaited dispensers, dispensers with 1 mg of codlemone containing 1% isomers, and dispensers with 1 mg of a test communication disruptant. When the test disruptant was an equilibrium mixture of codlemone and its isomers (61% codlemone, 39% isomers), the percent communication disruption was 86.8% compared to 68.7% for codlemone (P < 0.001). When the disruptant was (E,Z)-8,10-dodecadien-1-ol (94%EZ, 3%EE), the percentage disruption was 86.4% compared to 62.7% for codlemone (P < 0.002). These results show that the previously reported superior disruptant potency (relative to codlemone) of compositions containing codlemone with a high percentage of isomers was not a result of the proximity of the dispensers to the traps. The percent disruption of compositions of codlemone with 10 and 20% isomers was also determined. A plot of percentage disruption versus logarithm of percentage of nonpheromone isomers in the mixture from 1% to 97% gave a straight line withR (2)=0.93" |
Notes: | "PubMed-not-MEDLINEMcDonough, L M Chapman, P S Weissling, T J Smithhisler, C L eng 1996/03/01 J Chem Ecol. 1996 Mar; 22(3):415-23. doi: 10.1007/BF02033645" |